Outcry over judiciary separation

Some members of the administrative cadre last Sunday at a seminar harangued the government against the process of judiciary separation with the threat of work stoppage from November 1, the date of implementing the work of judiciary separation. However, on the following day, a delegation of the Administrative Service Association (ASA) at a meeting with the Law and Information adviser, softened their earlier stance and expressed their willingness to follow the dictates of the government. But at the same time they alleged of discrimination created between the judicial service and administrative cadres after the circular of January 16 had been issued. They placed seven-point demands to the government for removal of what they said, anomalies in the administrative service, as well as for the sake of smooth discharge of responsibilities by the administrative cadre officials.
There is no question that the administrative service cadres have some valid points to pursue. One may honestly ask at this point, why had the issue not been raised earlier? The process of separating the judicial branch of the state from the executive one has been a long-drawn one. On this score, it is long since that the Supreme Court had issued a directive to the government. The two previous successive elected governments that preceded the incumbent caretaker government initiated the process of the task of judiciary separation. Foot-dragging of those governments over implementing the task was taken to task by the Supreme Court on more than one occasion. The issue also came up for open discussion in the media among the intelligentsia of the country. As a consequence, the subject of judiciary separation has meanwhile assumed the aura of an inviolable national undertaking.
Neither the commitments made by the previous elected governments on the issue, nor the Supreme Court's directive to expedite the process to this effect were ever questioned by any quarters. It was rather the criticisms about failure of the past political governments to implement the task duly that became the topic of general discourse. And during this entire period, the executive organ of the government had never come up openly with any grievances, demands or protest demos against the issue of separating the judiciary from the executive. On the contrary, it was rather the role of the bureaucracy in all the dithering over the implementation process that drew flak from various quarters. Even the Supreme Court had issued rules on the responsible executives in the government bureaucracy to answer for the delay. But members of the administrative cadre remained as if tongue-tied during all these developments.
Naturally, it is then the element of abruptness that has come as a surprise. In fact, the surprise is about the manner in which the grievances among the administrative cadre have come to a head, and that too, exactly at the moment when a firm date for separation of the judiciary has been declared by the authorities. Granted any grievances genuinely felt by the employees of a government organ must have their justifications. At the same time, it is also true that contrasted with political parties or trade unions, the administration has its own rules of business to function encoded in the service rules, which, for example, brook no insubordination or indiscipline. In fact, indiscipline is antithetical to the very concept of governance. The enlightened members of the administrative cadres are certainly alive to this basic tenet of their sacred responsibility.
In this context, it is commendable that the government has remained resolute on the issue of judiciary separation as well as its set date of bringing into effect. Notwithstanding the observations made in the foregoing, the government needs to look into the demands or recommendations placed by the ASA and take necessary steps to address the genuine ones for the sake of integration and discipline in the administration.